I edited my previous post about my message behavior, also:

About close the topic, I think it can be closed because the project is finished. And as it is turning into a commercial product I cannot keep talking about it here because I can't use the forum as a sales promotion. I think members can open another topic about "user discussions and opinions"

Please manifest what do you prefer:

1 - close this topic and open other for user discussion and opinion.

2 - keep this topic and users can talk here.

@ahbleza thanks for the suggestion. My website will need to be redesign to include the anamorphic adapter. It will take some time. Also I will need to re-setup the mailbox there. While there is no anamorphic information in my website, people can send pm here or on vimeo.

www.apefos.com

vimeo.com/apefos

Will you have a complete website soon, containing information about the scoperama? :)

First user report with photo of the unit, de-squeezed images and the same images in original aspect, also some comments:

http://www.digitalrev.com/photo_detail?id=15378568

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mjones41/sets/72157632592370798/

@apefos

What do you mean?

I mean I will go until the hell to keep the project alive. It is turning into a honor challenge instead of money dig. When someone say no to me it makes me stronger.

I really fail to understand last two posts.
If people do not want to make something, they have business reasons behind this.
No need to turn it into farce.

@apefos

You know better, just do not post it all, as it looks not good.

@apefos I have just bumped into this project for the first time. Congratulations on achieving great results!!! I especially liked the Pink/Violet flare coating (Vitaliy_Kiselev version). But I'm slightly confused how this anamorphic adapter works:

1) In order to rack focus, do we need to rack focus on both the lens AND the Apefoscope simultaneously? This has been one factor that has been keeping me away from anamorphics. Or will it be like LA7200 so that changing focus on the lens is enough?

2) Does Apefoscope enable to capture a wider image, or is it simply vertically condensing the image? In other words, does it mean that using a 50mm lens from the same spot we can get a 37.5mm field of view? or will it be the same 50mm field of view with anamorphic looks?

3) I want to achieve 2.35:1 aspect ratio. Will Apefoscope enable to shoot 2538:1080p on a GH1 and Gh2?

4) What is the widest lens that can be used with Apefoscope? Will it work with 12mm SLR magic for instance?

5) Will it be mass produced? How much will be its price? And where would people be able to buy it?

Thanks.

Last days since finishing the lens coating tests I was working in some attempts to increase the squeeze factor to pursue the oval bokeh. There was lots of attempts in last month pursuing this thing with the help of my current optical lab, and also trying to find a CNC optical lab to work with. Today I finished all the tests I could do.

What I found is:

In the current optical configuration I have, when the squeeze factor goes over 1.5x the barrel distortion increases to an unacceptable level. Also the bokeh shape gets not perfect oval due to the lens grinding is not perfect. Any very minor difference in lens thickness from the lens sides hurts the oval shape. To get the oval shape lens grinding must be just perfect, CNC made without any error tolerance. And the optical system would need to be redesigned to avoid the barrel distortion.

The main reason I will stop to pursue the increase of squeeze factor is the barrel distortion. My optical knowledge is not enough to correct it in a more complex optical system.

Also I cannot force the big optical labs to work for a small project. All the big labs I visited in last month did not show a willing to do the lenses for me. They just do not need my small amount of money, they are busy schedule all time making lots of money in other tasks. So to stop the machines, change tools, reconfigure them, buy some tools they do not have, spend time of their workers... many business reasons to avoid the task.

The main reason I will not pursue the increase in the squeeze factor is not the problem with optical labs. I could try harder to find a lab. I could find a money partner to do a 100 lenses grinding to make the task worth the effort for them. Or even with some help from some powerful government friends I have from the time I worked with political advertising. I will not do these things because the main reason I will stop is my optical knowledge is not enough to correct the barrel distortion in bigger squeeze factor adapter.

What I will do from now is try to keep the 1.33x adapter project alive with the help of my current optical lab and charge different prices considering the lens quality in each unit. also I can do a video with each unit assembled to show the quality, so buyers will know exactly what they will pay for.

1.33x that isn't practical for follow-focus? I'd be much more of a mind to give a new product a shot if it gave me 1.5x with this sort of caveat, like the harder to find and expensive options that currently exist. Seems like if you're making a novelty lense and encountering resistance you'd be better off making it more novel and unique in the marketplace, not less.

Also, it's maybe more helpful in these situations to make reference to "follow focus" rather than "rack focus". When you say "rack focus" it brings to mind specialized shots that shift from way-over-there to way-over-here (or vice versa), kung fu movie zooms, etc. Not being able to "follow focus" has implications on every single shot in a motion picture with either camera or actor movement. The difference in importance between these two concepts is practically an order of magnitude.

Now getting best offer

Maybe some company can buy and improve the adapter with the CNC lens grinding and make lots of money.

If no company buy I will continue building units for sale with the mechanical grinding, the best I can do.